I realize they are going to get the money, from interest on consumers and fees on merchants, but if I steal a card and use it at a merchant, the merchant is not going to pay the cost back most of the time.  Maybe this changed since my brief merchant experience several years ago, but when I got disputes and proved I followed the proper procedures, I didn't pay the fraud charges.  I only remember 1 chargeback in 3 years.  I guess 'absorb' the cost isn't the right word, more like 'distribute' the cost.  Either way, if I have to pay visa 3% or bit-pay 3% and learn a whole new technology, what's my cost incentive?  Yes I'll be hit for fraud cost with visa a few times, but I can also be hit with double spends with bitcoins.
You misunderstand me.  I don't mean indirectly I mean directly.  For signature not present (internet, MOTO) you will lose even if you follow procedure.  You can se geo-location, CCV, address verification, etc and if it is fradulent the merchant loses all funds, pays $30 chargeback, and still pays the discount rate.
There are some rare exceptions (like theif using social engineering to get data on credit file changed) but 99% of the time the merchant eats the cost.  
Yes I'll be hit for fraud cost with visa a few times, but I can also be hit with double spends with bitcoins.
I have yet to heard of a merchant getting hit with a double spend.   Credit card fraud costs US merchants tens of millions every single year. 
This isn't intended to start an argument, it's a question I get from merchants.  And I don't really have a good answer.
Not arguing.  THAT is the answer.  For a face to face merchant in low risk industry that has a low discount rate and low % of fraud it likely isn't much incentive.  For a higher risk industry (digital downloads, porn, gambling, gift cards, etc) the costs DIRECTLY paid by merchants go way beyond the 3%.